asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a policy statement on the financing of new investment in urban transport.

We are at present considering local and Government investment in various forms of transport systems, including roads and railways, and we are talking to the G.L.C. to ascertain the most appropriate methods for financing alternative transport systems in London.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in a Press release issued by his Department he or his colleagues stated that he could not accept that grants for public transport could be put on the same basis as for principal roads? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that new rail track—for instance, the Fleet line—could be on the same basis? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it cannot be?

Different criteria are involved. I genuinely want to find a sensible formula to tackle the methods by which we shall finance these two alternative forms of transport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Greater London Council, the London Borough of Southwark and the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the future use of the Surrey Docks.

None specifically related to the Surrey Docks, but, as part of continuing discussions with the G.L.C., I have had a general discussion with them about some of the problems of redeveloping the dockland areas generally. I am determined to see that this unique opportunity of a comprehensive riverside development should be used to help solve both the housing problems of London and to provide a far better quality of environment in the areas concerned.

While welcoming the terms of that statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that, in view of the reply of his hon. Friend on 20th January that there is no project likely for the development of a short or vertical take-off and landing aircraft, the Government would not wish to suggest to the G.L.C. that it should either reserve land for this purpose in the Surrey Docks or agree to any aviation element, such as helicopters, in any vacant dockland?

This is a unique opportunity for a major city like London to develop a remarkable area of new environment and to provide decent homes for people. I hope that there will be a comprehensive development which will take that factor into consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the approximate proportion of local authority tenants who will be expected to bear the costs of reduction in public expenditure indicated in New Policies for Public Spending, paragraph 13; and what will be the expected reductions in the years 1971–72 and 1972–73.

Housing subsidies will not be reduced in 1971–72. The reductions in paragraph 35 of the White Paper relate to subsidies which would have been paid if the present system continued. I cannot at present estimate the effect of the new system on tenants in any given year, but I am now discussing with the local authority associations the change to fair rents and the rebates for those tenants who cannot afford the fair rent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his proposals will mean that by about the middle of this decade between £100 million and £200 million extra must fall to be borne by council tenants? As they are hard-pressed enough now, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for something to be done to relieve them of this burden?

As I said, there will be no cut in subsidies in the year 1971–72. After that the rebate system will be introduced, so that those tenants on whom the move towards fair rents might be thought to bear hardly will find relief.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I wrote to him concerning rent rebates and family income supplement before the introduction of the Government's new scheme. Will the Minister tell the House what progress he has made in informing the local authorities about the family income supplement and asking them not to raise the rents of families which receive an increase in their income as a result of the family income supplement?

I do not want to anticipate the statement which I shall be making to the House when discussions with the local authority associations are completed. These discusions are still in progress and are confidential.

While there may not be an absolute reduction in subsidies, there will be a huge reduction compared with what there would otherwise have been. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will mean a large increase in council house rents almost all over the country? In view of the widespread anxiety amongst council tenants, will the Minister at least tell us when he expects to finish his consultations and when he will make a statement?

I do not wish to state a rigid time limit to my talks with the local authority associations. These talks are making good progress, and I do not want to make a statement until they are finished.

Why do the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues always employ the term "fair rents" when what they really mean is higher rents?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The term "fair rent" was devised by the previous Administration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has completed the consultations with the local authority associations regarding housing subsidies; and if he will make a statement.

Consultations are in progress but I cannot at present make a statement.

Is the Minister aware that many of us on this side of the House do not consider that consultation only with local authority associations and not with elected members of local authorities is fully democratic? Before he completes his consultations, will he get in touch with a few Labour-controlled local authorities which tackle the housing problem more progressively?

All authorities are represented on the local authority associations and have the opportunity of making their views known.

Whatever Conservative councillors advise, does the Minister realise that if he goes ahead with the cutting of subsidies to the extent proposed there will be such serious increases in rent as to lead to the stopping of all future council building and serious disturbances among four million families?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares our concern in concentrating our funds to relieve those in most need, those local authorities and individuals which are hardest pressed. "To each according to his need" is our guideline.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain temporarily Tory-controlled city councils are using this delay to resist advice from their city treasurers to make an adjustment to bring housing accounts which are going into serious deficit into equilibrium? Will he write to the City Council of Stoke-on-Trent and urge his colleagues there to do something about this situation, which is causing the City Treasurer and others great dismay?

The speech which we have heard from the hon. Gentleman seems to me to be a travesty of the facts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that trying to get answers to questions on housing is rapidly becoming like trying to milk a wooden cow—a fascinating exercise with not much productivity at the end of it? The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know the answer to any issue of housing policy which has been put to him. We on this side of the House are waiting for replies on at least three reports and to hear the Government's policy on housing finance and on council rents. When will the Government have a policy?

The modesty of our statements stands in favourable contrast to the deliberately misleading statements put out by the previous Administration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is aware that some local authorities are finding it expensive to keep their swimming pools open during the winter months, thus depriving the public and schoolchildren of swimming lessons; and if he will take steps to make special grants so that these swimming baths can be kept open throughout the whole year.

It is for local authorities themselves to decide their own priorities for expendi- ture on local swimming facilities. I have no plans for special grants.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the lives of far too many young children are lost through drowning? Even during the summer, schoolchildren are deprived of swimming lessons because of inadequate facilities, and during the winter they are further deprived by so many swimming baths being closed.

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the Government have taken steps to set in motion a "best buy" swimming pool which will make it possible for many more communities to have pools, but it must be for local authorities to decide their priorities of expenditure.

For the encouragement of all-the-year-round swimming in open swimming pools, has the Department studied the possibility of using inflatable covering as an economic way of providing these facilities? If not, will my hon. Friend agree to such a study being undertaken?

Yes, the Technical Unit for Sport has done a great deal of study on this matter, and I shall be glad to send details to my hon. Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an increasing number of education authorities are withdrawing facilities for children to go to school baths and also buses to take children to school playing fields—all in the name of economy? Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter, which is causing widespread concern to educationalists and depriving children, particularly those living in the inner wards of our great conurbations?

If the hon. Gentleman will provide me with specified examples I shall be glad to look at them. As Minister for Sport, he followed a policy which is now being pursued equally actively, of persuading local education authorities and local authorities to join in the dual use of facilities, and I am sure he supports that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect selective employment tax is estimated to have had on council house rents.

I cannot make such an estimate because council rent-fixing policies vary. The rent of a council house is not normally related directly to the cost of constructing it.

Is the Minister aware of the outrage of the building industry at the imposition of S.E.T., which put 2 per cent. on to the price of a house? In view of that, does he not think that there is likely to be great concern when the abolition of subsidies leads to an increase of about 15 per cent. in rents, which in turn will lead to a cut-back in house building? Will he take this into account in formulating his future estimates?

I entirely agree that S.E.T. is a bad tax. It adds much more than 2 per cent —it adds about 3¾ per cent.—to the cost of a house, and I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support for any steps which the Government may take about this matter.

Will not the Minister reconsider this? Is it not worth working out precisely how much S.E.T. adds to the rent of a house? I am sure that council tenants will be interested to know because of what they were charged by the last Administration.

On a house involving contruction costs of £3,300, S.E.T. amounts to about £120, but I will certainly take into account my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will re-examine the form of contract between his Department and construction companies awarding contracts to build inner-urban motorways, to ensure that the provision of adequate information to the public in incumbent upon the construction company.

As I have already informed my hon. Friend, we are currently reviewing this matter. I will get in touch with him as soon as possible.

I call Mr. Skinner, for Question No. 8. I must ask hon. Members to rise when their Questions are called.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built in 1970; and how the figure compares with the average for the five years 1965 to 1969, inclusive.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built in 1970; and how the figure compares for each of the years 1965 to 1969.

292,000 dwellings were completed in England in 1970. The figures for each of the years 1965 to 1969 were 328,000, 330,000, 343,000, 353,000, and 307,000 respectively, giving an average for the five years of 332,000.

Is the Minister aware that one of the main reasons for the disappointing fall in 1970 was that his right hon. Friend the now Secretary of State for the Environment advised all Tory local authorities on 7th June, 1969 to resist the temptation to go on building council houses for two seemingly good purposes? Will he now give instructions to all local authorities, especially Coventry, not to take heed of the advice which he gave?

The hon. Gentleman's allegation is wholly unfounded. In any case, I think he would agree with me that there is no doubt whatsoever that the main cause of the collapse of the housing programme was the devaluation on which the previous Government was forced to embark.

On a point of order. The Minister has just said that the quotation was unfounded. Previously the Secretary of State has said that it is unfounded. I have here the conference report—

Order. If it is a serious point of order, the custom is that it should come at the end of Question Time. If it is a point of argument, it is no use at any time.

Mr. Speaker, I must do it now. I ask you to understand that I am not one who gets up on points of order. I do this because the House has twice been told that the Secretary of State did not utter those words. I have here the verbatim first-person conference report, and therefore I say that the Secretary of State is misleading the House on a vital matter.

I must endeavour to convince the hon. Member that I have no responsibility for a Minister's answer, nor have I any responsibility for what an hon. Member may say. Therefore, this cannot possibly be a point of order.

In view of the allegation that the collapse of the housing programme in 1969 and 1970 was due to a reduction in council house building, will my right hon. Friend remind the Opposition that 80 per cent. of the reduction was in the private sector, or a figure very close to that?

My hon. Friend is on to a good point. I was trying to stress that the collapse really resulted from mismanagement of the national economy by the previous Administration.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to improve on the average of 332,000 during the life of this Parliament?

I should be very disappointed if we did not improve on it, but I cannot at this stage attempt to give an exact total.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Channel Tunnel.

I met M. Chamant, the new French Minister of Transport, last week-end and discussed with him the Channel tunnel project and the proposals for its finance and construction put forward by a private international group last July.

Both Governments will now discuss the proposals and possible modifications of them with the group before reaching conclusions. We shall be discussing with the group also how an early start can be made on the further studies which must precede the final decision on the project itself.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the White Paper is eight years out of date, it is now about time that the estimates on which it was based were revised, and his own Department has consistently refused to give us information on traffic densities which we know it has? Will he prepare a White Paper setting out the objectives of the new scheme, and will he revise the whole concept of this tunnel link, bearing in mind that the Stanstead project was small by comparison with the expenditure in this case, and will he now look at the matter afresh from the point of view of the environment in the whole of the region concerned?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me quite a lot. For most of the period to which he refers, his right hon. Friends were in charge of my Department.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am endeavouring to answer the question. I shall certainly consider the usefulness of another White Paper; I am sure that it will be necessary before very long, and it is just a question of the timing. As regards the stage which we have now reached, what we are embarked upon is the final studies dealing with the feasibility of the project and the economics, which, of course, play an important part in the final decision.

Are the promoters of the scheme still seeking a Treasury guarantee of their investment, or are they prepared to risk their own money?

It is a bit of both, Sir.

Perhaps I should declare my interest as I was one of the two honorary secretaries of the inter-party Parliamentary Group on the Channel Tunnel, in which a fair number of hon. Members are concerned.

Among the galaxy of talent in the Department—eight in all—is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister who will make the decision? Second, is he aware that it seems that the French Government are much more concerned, much more active, much more interested and much more capable in getting the project moving than are his own Government?

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the elegance of his compliments, which are well deserved. The decision on the project itself is for the Government as a whole. It is a very important matter, and one for which I have some responsibility.

As one of the two joint chairmen of the Parliamentary Channel Tunnel Group to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has referred—which means, I hasten to add, that none of us, as far as I know, has any commercial interest in the scheme—may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, having looked at the traffic projections for the next ten years, he reckons that it is necessary to look urgently at any additional form of transport such as this? Second, after the 14 years since the scheme was first put forward, does not my right hon. Friend now agree that there is need for an urgent decision or at least a statement of intent by the Governments concerned?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said. I think that we have reached the stage now of embarking on the final studies. I very much hope that those studies will confirm the faith which my hon. Friend has always shown in this important project.

I welcome that the right hon. Gentleman is to pursue his inquiries with some urgency, but will he not agree that, quite apart from economics, the tunnel will be the only means of crossing the Channel not subject to fog risks, and, incidentally, is it not obvious from the previous studies that it will be the cheapest way of crossing the Channel and that the scheme will be profitable?

I think that I can agree without risk that, if the tunnel were built, it would be a means of crossing the Channel without interruption by fog.

The delay in coming to a decision is causing serious inconvenience and unemployment in the Folkestone and Hythe constituency. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that my constituents are most anxious to be assured that this will be a viable link before they will accept what will be some infringement of their privacy?

I am well aware of the degree of hardship which must have been imposed, and is still likely to be imposed, on my hon. Friend's constituents. He has never hesitated to make these points very clear to me. I shall bear their problems closely in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average price obtained in England and Wales in 1970 by local authorities selling three-bedroom houses, and the average cost of building a new three-bedroom house to Parker Morris standards.

Separate figures for the price of three-bedroom houses sold by local authorities are not available. The estimated average total cost, with land, for new three-bedroom houses for which tenders were accepted in 1969 was about £4,300. Figures for 1970 are not yet available.

Is it not clear from the reply which the Minister himself gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) on 9th December last that local authorities which are selling council houses to sitting tenants are diminishing, not increasing, their financial ability to provide houses to people in need?

No, Sir. The fallacy under which the hon. Gentleman labours is that one has to replace each house which is sold. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, it is unnecessary to replace most of the houses sold.

Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the effect on the selling price of a council house if he pursues the policy of reducing subsidies and increasing rents? Is that a matter of which the local authorities have been made aware?

As my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, the local authorities are well aware that discussions are going on about the whole reform of housing finance. I am sure that they are fully aware of the factors involved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Parker Morris standards entail a considerable increase in the cost of building, with no appreciable benefit to the tenants, and does he realise the danger of giving a further turn to the spiral of building costs if the Parker Morris standards are made a "sacred cow"?

I note what my hon. Friend says, but the whole House is united in agreeing that we must not build houses which will become slums in the future.

Returning to the original point, is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) must mean that there will be a reduction in the provision of council housing and a cut-back in the programme nationally? Second, is he not aware that his own party's manifesto and his right hon. Friend at Question Time on 25th November expressed the belief that there would be finance made available for new construction as a result of the sale of council houses, but that it is clear from the figures given today and on a previous occasion that nothing of the sort will result and that we are being misled on this subject?

I cannot accept that. The House is not being misled. There is a genuine difference of views about the effects of this policy between the two sides of the House. I note that the Labour Party is not in favour of council tenants having the opportunity to own their own houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now ready to make a considered statement on his policy relating to the closure of passenger rail services.

No, Sir. The general policy on unremunerative rail passenger services is still under review.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general impression that he leaves in an area like mine, where he is proposing to close the Oldham-Rochdale line, is that he is putting financial considerations—some of them rather dubious—before social and environmental considerations? Is not that a reasonable impression for people to gain from what the right hon. Gentleman is doing?

I think that that is a pretty unreasonable question. To begin with, I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to financial considerations with what almost amounts to contempt. As he is aware, they are of great importance. As regards the possible closure of the branch line to which he has referred, he will be aware that this proposal was made by the railways in August of last year, at a time when I had not had much chance to get my fingers on the problem.

In my right hon. Friend's review, will he take a close and critical look at the Cooper formula?

Yes, Sir. Certainly I am prepared to accede to my right hon. Friend's request. However, I should tell him that the Cooper Brothers formula has now been fairly well enshrined in folk lore. I think that it is likely to stay there.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, on taking office, he said that he expected to see a much smaller rail network but that he first wished to inform himself on the subject? After seven months' consideration, does he still hold to that general judgment?

I am exceedingly flattered by the attention which the hon. Gentleman gives to my earlier remarks. I believe that the tendency for the railway system to shrink, as it has over the last 10 years and more, is likely to be continued. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had any brisk ideas of how to stem this tide, they should have done so when they had the opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further discussions he has had with the new directors of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board; and if he will make a statement.

I have had a number of discussions with Mr. Cuckney and Sir Matthew Stevenson, the new Chairman and Deputy Chairman. As the House will know, the Board have withdrawn the Private Bill deposited by them on 27th November; as they will be making clear in a circular letter to their security holders on Friday, they are seeking permission to introduce a new Bill this Session.

Arrangements are being made for copies of the Board's circular letter to be placed in the Library when it is issued.

Does the right hon. Gentleman now recognise that, with Government finance and Government appointed directors involved, not unnaturally thousands of small savers assumed that their capital was safe? Will he see that sufficient funds are made available to ensure that it is safe? Will he at least make it clear that this will be done to safeguard the future of small savings, both in the country as a whole and in the North-West in particular, where investment in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was considered to be as safe as any investment in local government stock?

I am as sorry as anyone else for the losses suffered by those least able to bear them. However, that does not mean that I or the Government can underwrite every undertaking into which those savings find their way.

Bearing in mind that there have been Government-nominated directors on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board for some time, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the main object must be to make the port as profitable as possible as speedily as possible? What action is being taken to quicken the turn-round of ships so that shipping lines do not move elsewhere? Can he say something about the likely profitability of Seaforth and any action being taken to empower local authorities, if they so wish, to help the port?

I warmly agree with what my hon. Friend said about the need for a quick turn-round in order to encourage users of the port. However, that is not so much a matter for me as for the management and all those engaged in the Port of Liverpool. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate to comment that labour disputes do not help at this juncture. On my hon. Friend's point about Seaforth, I would add that this is a matter of the highest importance. But its profitability depends, again, on the management and all those engaged in the port itself.

What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the capital requirements of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board over and above what the Government are committed to supply? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's policy has virtually destroyed the credit-worthiness of the Board, from where does he expect that additional capital to be obtained?

It was not I who destroyed the credit-worthiness of the Board.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that his reference to the second thoughts both of the Government and of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board in respect of the original Private Bill will be greatly welcomed both in the House and outside it, not only by hon. Members representing Merseyside constituencies but by others concerned with the wider principles involved in the original Bill? As regards any obligations which the Government will place on the Board in its reorganisation scheme in the future, how will those obligations be borne? Will the Government undertake to support them, apart from the Board getting on with the task of making Merseyside a viable commercial proposition?

My hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to remind the House that the two Bills, the one which has been withdrawn and the one which the Board proposes, are not Government Bills. They have been drafted and produced by the Board itself.

Nonsense.

The hon. Gentleman should know by now what a Private Bill is. These Bills, in essence, are Private Bills. I believe that the Board was right in withdrawing the previous one, which had at least the merit of being deposited within the parliamentary timetable by the old Board. The new one has been designed by the Board to meet many of the objections made by lenders, by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in this House and by the City itself. I hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House when it is produced.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, when he explained his policy on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, it was based on a reconstruction in the Private Bill which has now been withdrawn? What is his policy now that there is no Private Bill and no reconstruction? Will he make it clear that, if he has no responsibility for such a Private Bill, no Government Whip will be put on to get that Bill through the House, and that no Private Bill will be brought forward by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, for which he has responsibility, having appointed the chairman and vice-chairman, which involves the confiscation of debenture holders' capital?

It is difficult to get round the basic problem of Mersey, which is that, with a capital debt of about £95 million, the port is unable to earn a surplus. That simple sentence covers the whole problem. As for the new Bill, it is a Bill produced by the Board. I think that it would be improper for me to anticipate its contents.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the restriction of hours worked by lorry drivers has had on parking problems in urban residential areas.

I have no evidence to show what effect these restrictions have had.

Will my hon. Friend look into this matter and consider some amending legislation to enable lorry drivers to use their common sense to get to a proper place to park, so relieving private families of this intolerable intrusion on their privacy in private streets?

With the help of chief constables, a working party on lorry parking is now carrying out counts of lorries parked at night in streets and on derelict land. Once we have the results of those counts, we shall be able to make a judgment of the problem. The whole question of lorry drivers' hours is a matter at which my right hon. Friends are looking.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that this is not merely a matter of parks, security, and so on but, just as important, of the working hours of drivers and where they stay overnight? Will he give attention to this matter of getting decent hostels where lorry drivers can get bed and breakfast after long hours at the wheel when they come to towns like Hull and Liverpool?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I wish that he had shown it when his right hon. and hon. Friends were putting these hours through the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the outcome of his special study of lorry parking problems in the North-West of England; and what account is being taken of the Greater London Council's experimental scheme to ban overnight parking of goods vehicles from specific streets in a limited zone of Greater London.

We expect to receive an interim report from the Working Party shortly. I understand the Greater London Council intend to introduce their scheme in Tower Hamlets soon.

How soon can private families and homes in Ilford expect to be relieved of this invasion?

This is a matter for the Greater London Council.

The hon. Gentleman has spoken about chief constables examining this matter. Do not police constables already have powers to stop obstruction and unnecessary parking? When it comes to working-class areas, where there are narrow roads and streets, the police seem to take no action, even when requested. If it is in Berkeley Square or Downing Street, they do not allow lorries to park. Why is it they do not take action in working-class areas where there are narrow streets and there is obstruction, when they prevent this kind of parking in more salubrious neigh-bourhoods like Chelsea?

It is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to deal with those allegations against the police—

What I say is true.

For my part, I reject at once the suggestion that our police discriminate against any section of the community.

How many lorries are parked in Downing Street?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for additional advertising campaigns to advise tenants of their rights and remedies under the Rent Act, 1968.

On taking office, I decided that both the quality and quantity of effort was insufficient.

I have, therefore, endeavoured to improve the quality of the advertising and I have increased the expenditure by 60 per cent. over that planned by my predecessors. I am currently considering the question of further publicity.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, will he undertake that, if there is to be further publicity as he has outlined, he will consult local authorities more actively about the best way in which that publicity should be given? Does not he agree also that the results of the previous publicity were very disappointing and that many tenants are still unaware of their rights and remedies?

I am sure that a lot more needs to be done, and I would be willing to hear any suggestions made by local authorities. Under the new Statutes that we intend to introduce, we wish to provide that these rights shall be printed in every rent book.

Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the problems of small landlords who cannot have recourse to solicitors every day and who are exploited by a minority of unscrupulous tenants who know all the dodges and often frustrate court orders to pay arrears of rent?

Certainly. However, there is a lot of hardship for tenants in certain areas as a result of their not knowing their legal rights. I am anxious that they should know them.

As the right hon. Gentleman has conceded that a large number of tenants are unaware of their rights under the 1968 Act and are not taking advantage of them, will he consider postponing his decision to bring controlled tenants under the fair rent procedure until a higher proportion of existing tenants take advantage of their rights?

By bringing to the attention of tenants their rights, our new legislation will improve the situation substantially.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions the Greater London Council and the London Transport Executive have held with him concerning transport planning in Hackney.

None, Sir.

Is not this disgraceful? Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that, despite the protests of my local authority and tenants' associations in Hackney, thousands of my constituents are deprived of any effective bus service? Is that sort of situation in accordance with our democratic procedures? What rights have my constituents in these matters?

They have every right to appeal to the appropriate transport authority. That is not my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent Her Majesty's Government's policy on sport has changed since 17th June.

For the better, Sir.

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that reply with his speech at the annual general meeting of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, when he said that it was wrong for the taxpayers to subsidise sport and that the people taking part in sport should be prepared to pay more? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if people have to pay economic prices for sport, about 75 per cent. of our tennis courts and bowling greens will have to close down?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman read my speech, although he has misquoted it. He is responsible for the figures he gives. I say that it is desirable that sport should increase its revenue so that there should be more money to spend on better facilities.

We are glad to note that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there has been change for the better, but that is not the view of people either in sport or in the country as a whole and we should be glad to have details of that change. Meanwhile, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it remains Government policy not to offer grants to British sports teams to go to South Africa and to compete in international sport in conditions of racial segregation?

I have told the Sports Council that the Government will welcome its advice on all sporting matters but, unlike the practice under the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary will make the Government's judgment on foreign policy and national security matters.

Does that mean that the Government are now going to give a grant of the British taxpayers' money for a sports team to compete in conditions of apartheid?

It is for the Sports Council to judge on sporting merits and to make recommendations to the Government. The Government will make the decisions. as is their right.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to enlarge the terms of reference of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

I have just received representations from the Central Committee to this end, and will consider these carefully.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee is not allowed to discuss fares or the threat of reduction of a service, or the quality of a service or the proposed closure or reorganisation of a service? Does not he agree that this important Committee should be enabled to consider and report on these matters and anything relevant to them instead of being held in a straitjacket, as now, and allowed to discuss only one thing—personal hardship?

So far as I am aware, the Committees are able to discuss the quality of service. As I have said, I will be looking at this subject now that I have received proposals from the Central Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet able to announce his decision on whether to make compulsory the installation of a device to prevent jackknifing in every articulated lorry.

No, Sir. The effort to develop effective anti-jackknifing equipment has revealed problems which are still under investigation. Further study and extensive trials will be needed before any decision on compulsion can be taken.

Since there were 716 cases of injury in 1969 due to articulated lorries jackknifing, does not the hon. Gentleman think that something should be done about it, as is being done in the United States? Is he further aware that Watford a few weeks ago nearly had a by-election because an articulated lorry jackknifed and nearly hit and fell on top of the car in which the hon. Member for Watford and his wife were travelling?

I am sorry to hear of that incident. But I ask the hon Gentleman to remind himself that the overall accident rate of articulated vehicles is about the same as that for similarly sized rigid lorries. This matter is being studied and some anti-jackknifing devices are being examined.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how long this matter has been under investigation?

Not without notice.

Since my Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of concern in Chigwell Urban District and elsewhere at the decision of the police to withdraw road safety instructors, he will issue a circular to local authorities or others affected giving advice on how instruction can still be given.

No, Sir. Existing circulars already give the necessary advice.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the road safety teams were very highly regarded by our councillors and my constituents? Will the Government give every help if difficulties arise over implementing the new circulars and in bringing about the substitute arrangements?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends provide rather generous sums of money to local authorities, and I only wish that the local authorities would allot more of it to road safety purposes. The Department has invited local authorities in the Metropolitan Police area to nominate road safety officers for a course to be run by the Department next month.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the high regard in which these services are held by the local authorities, including Newham, which is corresponding with him on these matters? How will he ensure that the alternative methods reach the same standards as the methods abandoned?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute he has paid to the police, who provided these services before. They have had to be redeployed to other forms of road safety work. I assure him that officials of my Department are perfectly capable and certainly very willing to provide all the help needed.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's attitude towards police pay will not encourage voluntary assistance by police officers in this appeal? Does not he further agree that, although we all appreciate the work done by the police in this matter, the real answer is much more encouragement to local authorities to appoint full-time road safety officers?

I agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Police pay is no longer a matter for me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any conclusion has now been reached in his discussions with the local authorities on the financing of the Humber Bridge.

No conclusions have yet been reached. Officials of my Department will be meeting representatives of the Humber Bridge Board on 2nd February to discuss the extent of the Government's involvement in the financing of the bridge.

I am glad that at last the Government seem to be taking some sort of interest in the project. Do the Government accept the need and desirability of the bridge in principle? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the discussion is going to be only about how the money is to be raised and not about the question whether there should be a bridge?

Yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole future of the Humber Bridge is being held up by the activities of two hon. Members opposite who have thought fit to block the Bill although they do not represent constituencies in the area?

I do not think that I would agree on that. The Department is proceeding with the discussion of the financing of the bridge.

While denying point blank the allegation made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), may I ask the Minister when we can expect the Humber Bridge Bill before the House? Is he aware that the Town Clerk and the Corporation are expecting the Second Reading perhaps this coming week? In view of the continuing inflation under the present Government, every month is important to the people of North Humberside, since every month means that the cost is higher. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly give us something definite about the legislation?

I appreciate the urgency but the introduction of a Private Bill is not the responsiblity of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he now has for the improved road access necessary between Hull and the present planned terminal of the M62 at Baxholme.

This is still under investigation.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does he realise that increasing concern is being expressed by all parties and by both sides of industry on the North Bank of the Humber about the need to have a definitive plan for taking the motorway into Hull? Is he aware that there have been inspired or uninspired leaks in the local Press about the decision his Department was taking in the matter and that we should like a final decision as soon as possible?

I appreciate that, but this is a difficult problem. There are various stretches of road to which design difficulties apply, and we shall have to go into them very thoroughly to try to get the right solution.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his priorities for the dualling of the remaining single-carriageway sections of the Al between London and Gateshead.

Schemes to dual the remaining single-carriageway sections of the Al are either under construction or are being prepared as quickly as possible. With permission I will circulate the list of schemes in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can my hon. Friend say when the five-mile section between Welwyn and Hatfield is to be dualled? This must be the busiest and most dangerous section of the Al not yet dualled. It has a bad accident record, and the necessary land is already there.

My hon. Friend will find the information in the reply detailed. Every section of the road is under urgent attention.

When might we expect grade-separated junctions to be provided on the section of the AI going through Yorkshire?

That is a detailed question about which I shall have to write to the lion. Gentleman.

Following is the information:

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place restrictions on the size and weight of lorries using country roads.

This is a matter for the local traffic authorities, who have ample powers to do so if they wish.

Because of bad east-west communications on Humberside, heavy lorries are using country roads which were not constructed for this form of traffic and are gravely damaging them. Will my right hon. Friend look at the whole question so that he can devise voluntary restrictions to be applied until the new motorway is open?

Apart from the brevity and truth of my reply, there is more to be said on this subject. It is one which I take very seriously indeed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also direct his attention to the problems in urban roads, particularly in the London area, where, as I have tried to show previously, the weight of lorries is largely responsible for the large number of burst water mains about which we have heard recently?

Having in mind, amongst other things, the hon. Gentleman's eloquence on this subject, I took a modest step forward recently in refusing a further growth in the laden weight of lorries.

Is it not high time that my right hon. Friend designated a whole series of lorry routes throughout the United Kingdom to safeguard small towns, villages and parts of the country which are precious to us all?

Yes, Sir. I agree entirely that it is highly desirable that we should do this, but until we have completed an adequate network of motorways, I think it would be very hard to achieve.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to ensure that builders whose companies go bankrupt are not permitted to engage in any further constructional activities from which they or their families may derive profit.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the Boon Hill and Clayton Hall estate in my constituency, the builder has gone into liquidation, leaving owners very much worse off than himself? Is he further aware that a constituent of mine with a seven-year-old house in danger of breaking up was given professional advice to sell the house quickly because the builder was going into liquidation?

The hon. Gentleman originally asked me about companies going bankrupt. I am glad to see that he has corrected that phrase. Companies do not go bankrupt; they go into voluntary or enforced liquidation. It is individuals who go bankrupt. We recognise a similar distinction in the political field. Thus, 18th June marked the enforced liquidation of the previous Government, and the sacking of the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) might be regarded as a bankruptcy now happily discharged.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why in the matter of the Clara Lawrence Trust Planning Appeal it took from 2nd April to 5th November before a decision was given; and why the decision then given was contrary to the advice given by the Department's own inspector.

The Inspector's recommendation would have involved two breaches of policy—Green Belt policy and flood area policy—and the period between submission of his report and the decision letter was extended by a necessary reconsideration of the policies themselves as applicable to this area. The proposed development would have been an undue intensification of existing development in a proposed Green Belt area and would have been a significant breach of the local planning authority's policy of strict control over development in areas liable to flood.

Despite that, would not my hon. Friend agree that, in circumstances in which an applicant has had to wait 10 months from the moment of his application to get a decision, and when that decision, given in his favour by an inspector who saw the site and heard the evidence, is reversed by a Minister who did not see the site or hear the evidence, it is almost impossible to persuade my constituent that he has been treated either with efficiency or with justice?

We are reluctant to turn down an inspector's recommendation and do not do so lightly. Indeed, only 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of recommendations by our inspectors are turned down each year. But when they deal with matters of considerable policy, such as the Green Belt and flood policy, they must be considered very carefully. I regret the delay in this matter.

On a point of order. Thank you Mr. Speaker for giving me an opportunity briefly to raise a point of order.

Last night, during the Division on the Closure, four hon. Members were in the Lobby my hon. Friends the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the Member for Putney. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor was the unofficial "sweeper" and when he came to "sweep out", neither the Tellers nor the Clerks were present, and, therefore, the votes of those four Members were not counted and when they came back into the Chamber, Mr. Speaker was announcing the result of the Division.

My object in raising a point of order is not to allocate blame in the matter. It was no fault of the hon. Members concerned, but whose fault it was does not matter. However, it was a mistake and I should like our votes to be properly recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT to show that we were there and voted, although we were not counted.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice that he intended to raise this point of order. I will direct that his name and those of the other three hon. Members he mentioned shall be added to the official Division List as requested. It seems that the mistake arose because the Tellers left their posts before I gave the order, "Lock the doors". I draw the attention of all Tellers to the words of a notice posted near the exit of both Division Lobbies: Tellers and clerks should not leave their places until after the Lobbies have been locked and all Members then within the Lobbies who wish to record their votes have been enabled to do so.

On a point of order. May I raise a point of order arising from the answer to Question No. 18 this afternoon?

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Minister was answering a question of mine about grant aid to sports teams going to South Africa, it was extremely difficult for the House to get a categorical assurance from the Minister that past policy would be continued. Indeed, most of us drew the conclusion that there had been a major change of policy and that the Government intended to make grants to British teams to take part in sport in conditions orb apartheid.

If so—[HON. MEMBERS: "This is not a point of order."] It is indeed a point of order. If it is true, as I believe it to be, that there is such a change of policy, it is my submission that there should have been a Ministerial statement in order that the House could judge the repercussions not only for Members of Parliament, but for British sport. Will you Mr. Speaker, protect the interests of hon. Members who are legitimately seeking to find out what Government policy is and who ought to have their rights in this matter protected?

That is not a point of order. I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to work according to the rules of the House. If the House casts upon the Chair the responsibility of commenting on the content of answers and speeches, it may be that the Chair will accept that responsibility; but those are not the rules of the House. The content of a Minister's answer is a matter for the Minister and not for the Chair, and therefore no point of order can arise.